Explorations

This is a comment I just wrote for a post on Steven Novella’s blog, and while it’s specific to that post, I think it’s of enough general interest — or at least it appears intelligable enough to me standing alone — to be worth posting here as well. The (slightly edited) comment follows below the fold.

Continue Reading »

Geoff Arnold posts this:

There’s a nice review of books related to the “free will” debate over at the Financial Times. If you’re unfamiliar with the radical findings of Libet et al, you should check it out.

I used to be a philosophy student. Lots of things moved me away from it (like “what are you gonna do, open a philosophy store?) but among them was the realization that while the arguments were often kind of fun, a lot of them were essentially silly — they depended on definitions carefully constructed to allow for infinite disputation, but which, on examination, don’t actually offer any insight.

Any discussion of “free will” is an unendingly productive source of silly disputation.

First off, let’s start with the notion of “free will,” quoting from the FT article.

“If I had free will, I would choose to be funnier. I would choose always to have the right witty riposte ready to disarm adversaries and delight friends. But sadly, it is not so. My lot is for the same lame old gags to hobble out whether I will them to or not, like embarrassing aunts at a wedding.”

This argument (along with Scott Adams’ continual maundering about it) are based on a notion of “free will” that requires noncausal omnipotence. Look at the example in the Financial Times article: “If I had free will, I’d choose to be funnier,” etc.

Fine. If I had free will, I’d choose to speak fluent French, have ten million dollars, be able to float in mid-air, and heal Cathy Seipp’s lung cancer. Continue Reading »